The system disclosed herein can be used with, but is not limited to, vehicles employed in crash avoidance technologies disclosed in the following patent applications developed by the same inventors and assigned to the same assignee: U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/050,039 entitled “System and Method for testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Oct. 9, 2013 by Joseph Kelly et al (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,751,143); U.S. patent application Ser. No. 14/050,048 entitled “System and Method for testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Oct. 9, 2013 by Joseph Kelly et al (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,755,999); U.S. Patent Application No. 61/874,274 entitled “Master-Slave Automated Coordinated Vehicle Control” filed Sep. 5, 2013 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. Patent Application No. 61/874,267 entitled “Rigid Belt Drive Tensioner” filed Sep. 5, 2013 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. Patent Application No. 61/874,264 entitled “Robotic Hydraulic Brake Master Cylinder” filed Sep. 5, 2013 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/357,526 entitled “System and Method for Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed Jan. 24, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,447,509); U.S. Patent Application No. 61/507,539 entitled “Guided Soft Target For Full Scale Advanced Crash Avoidance Technology Testing” filed on Jul. 13, 2011 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. Patent Application No. 61/578,452 entitled “Guided Soft Target For Full Scale Advanced Crash Avoidance Technology Testing” filed on Dec. 21, 2011 filed by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. Patent Application No. 61/621,597 entitled “Collision Partner, System and Method” filed on Apr. 9, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. Patent Application No. 61/639,745 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Apr. 27, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al; U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/532,366 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Jun. 25, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,428,863); U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/532,383 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Jun. 25, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,428,864); U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/532,396 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Jun. 25, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,457,877); U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/532,417 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Jun. 25, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,583,358); and U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/532,430 entitled “Devices, Systems, And Methods For Testing Crash Avoidance Technologies” filed on Jun. 25, 2012 by Joseph Kelly et al. (issued as U.S. Pat. No. 8,589,062). Each of these patent applications is incorporated herein in their entirety including all tables, figures, and claims.
As Advanced Crash Avoidance Technologies (ACATs) such as Forward Collision Warning (FCW), Crash Imminent Braking Systems and other advanced technologies continue to be developed, the need for full-scale test methodologies that can minimize hazards to test personnel and damage to equipment has rapidly increased. Evaluating such ACAT systems presents many challenges. For example, the evaluation system should be able to deliver a potential Soft Collision Partner (Soft CP) reliably and precisely along a trajectory that would ultimately result in a crash in a variety of configurations, such as rear-ends, head-ons, crossing paths, and sideswipes. Additionally, the Soft Collision Partner should not pose a substantial physical risk to the test driver, other test personnel, equipment, or to subject vehicles in the event that the collision is not avoided. This challenge has been difficult to address. Third, the Soft CP should appear to the subject vehicle as the actual item being simulated, such as a motor vehicle, a pedestrian, or other object. For example, the Soft CP should provide a consistent signature for radar and other sensors to the various subject vehicles, substantially identical to that of the item being simulated. It would be also advantageous for the Soft CP to be inexpensive and repeatably reusable with a minimum of time and effort.
Past attempts to provide a suitable Soft CP include: a balloon car, an example of which is depicted in FIG. 13 (the “balloon car”); a rear-end target specified by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA); an example of which is depicted in FIG. 14 (the “NHTSA car-rear”); and a cushioned crashed target provided by Anthony Best Dynamics (ABD), an example of which, partially cut away to show internal structure, is depicted in FIG. 15 (the “ABD car”). All these prior designs have limitations. The balloon car is subject to damage, including bursting, when impacted at higher speeds. Additionally, the balloon car tends to exhibit aerodynamic flutter when moving through the air, which can confuse the sensors on the subject vehicle. The NHTSA car-rear can only be used for rear-end collision testing, and due to its unyielding design can cause minor damage to the subject vehicle at higher speeds. The ABD car cannot be driven through or over due to the large drive system 1505 in the middle of the car as shown in FIG. 15. The relatively heavy ABD car must be pushed out of the way during an impact, creating large forces on the subject vehicle at high speeds, and therefore cannot be used for impact speeds over about 50 kilometers per hour. Additionally, prior art Soft CP's have lacked the steering and braking performance of the vehicles they are simulating, limiting their usefulness in generating real-world data.